@liberosist cool. Thank you for keeping your mind open. This is the most important part for both parties in any discussion.
For my part I've observed the evidence for myself and I found them to be overwhelming coherent with covert geo-engineering operations rather than normal condensation trail.
Also the fact that the US army conducted top secret geo-engineering operation during 5 years in the Vietnam war is cause for concern that such program still exist for me. (US army source of the declassified paper can be found on wikipedia)
As this,
China creates 55 billion tons of artificial rain a year—and it plans to quintuple that (qz.com)
And this,
Weather on Demand: Making It Rain Is Now a Global Business
Welcome to the strange world of cloud seeding. (forbes.com)
And Project Stormfury
Project Stormfury was an attempt to weaken tropical cyclones by flying aircraft into them and seeding with silver iodide. The project was run by the United States Government from 1962 to 1983. (wikipedia)
There are multiple evidences, overwhelming evidences that some of the lines behind some airplanes are part of some covert geo-engineering program. I'll present those evidences here eventually.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Popeye
http://qz.com/138141/china-creates-55-billion-tons-of-artificial-rain-a-year-and-it-plans-to-quintuple-that/
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-cloud-seeding-india/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Stormfury
There's enough evidence for geo-engineering - that's not the issue. The question is whether aluminium and harmful, toxic particles are being seeded as accused by "chemtrails". There's no conspiracy around silver iodide seeding - there's enough evidence for that, and governments are hardly covert about it.
I get you. Thank you.
I hope to present my observations which I see as overwhelming evidences of highly classified geo-engineering operations. I don't have any first hand evidence for aluminium. Aluminium isn't part of my evidences.
I'm eager to see to what conclusions people will come up with and see if they, like a lot of us, come to the conclusion this scientists collection of peer-reviewed papers seems suspiciously off from what is being observed for whatever reasons, be it that they've been coherced to conclude what they concluded, incentivized to lie or simply made bad observation, thus bad science.
I'll eventually read the paper this week. I'll most probably comment on it when I'll publish my article on the subject. This would make a lot of sense.